How will I see that "most people blindly trust mainstream media" by watching a 24 hour news channel? Maybe you thought I was asking for source of your other claim? (I wasn't.)
While that monitor may do 120Hz, the glasses that came with GeForce 2 / ASUS hardware was 30Hz/eye max. Isn't that what we were talking about? I'm unfamiliar with older Crystal Eyes systems.
As other have mentioned, games did not need to support the glasses -- they just worked, because the 3d data is in directX.
They didn't succeed because they gave people headaches due to the refresh rate being something like 30Hz for each eye. The new tech/glasses in this article are 60Hz/eye, which is why it requires special 120Hz displays (which is why these new ones probably won't succeed.)
Define "regular." And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."
Yeah, I know what they mean because I emailed the CEC and they replied. And that might be OK (even though it's silly, really, if you think about it) except they don't make that clear in their report, nor does the LA Times. Instead you get:
LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more. Plasma TVs, which command a relatively small share of the market, need more than three times as much power as bulky, old-style sets.
Which is utter bullshit couched in a crappy, vague use of the word "average" as a weasel word to try to say, "Hey, these new LCDs sets use more power, so we need to tax and/or regulate them more!" instead of the more honest "people are buying bigger TVs because LCD tech makes that cost effective, but that is marginally increasing power consumption so we need to look at possible solutions."
Seriously, this nonsense is like saying "it costs more to keep a person alive these days so we all need to pitch in and pay new taxes to keep everyone alive or we'll have to start killing people!" instead of "hey, people are living longer thanks to medical advances, so we're going to have to start taxing/regulating healthcare to manage the issue."
No, they don't. You are completely incorrect. LCDs use marginally less than CRTs in standby mode (neither use any power when truly "off", as in "unplugged", of course) and even the CECs document shows that LCD and CRT (and Plasma and DLP) use the same power when in standby mode.
Nice try, care to give it another shot, but with facts, citations, or at least truth this time?
(The fact is, as I learned through contacting the CEC, is that they're not comparing the same size sets across technologies. They're comparing the "average LCD size" to the "average CRT size" which is something like comparing 30" LCD to 20" CRT, which is, of course, bullshit.
Close, but no. A same sized LCD will use far less (like 50% less) power than a CRT, and that's assuming old-school fluorescent backlights at 100%. LED backlight makes the difference even bigger. See the sources in my other post if you doubt it.
Also, comparing these technologies based on an "average" screen size that depends on the technology is bullshit. Compare size, or tax/set requirements based on power consumption, but the CEC's methods are ridiculous as is.
Right, except for the sales tax part. They'll buy it from an online vendor (who have the bes prices by far anyway) and pay no sales tax since the vendor will most likely be one with no brick & mortar presence in CA, and therefore need not charge sales tax.
Yay another example of raising taxes resulting in less revenue!
The article and in particular this "infographic" is completely wrong or at least misleading. LCD TVs do not consume more power than the same sized CRT as claimed. In fact, an LCD set will consume 50% or less power than a
comparably-sized CRT. Of course, if you decide to base each type of set's power consumption on "average set size" without fucking bothering to define what that average is or even bothering to keep the same average for each type of TV (!), then you can pretty much "prove" anything you want, can't you?
Hell, my neighborhood newsletter is way more popular* and produces much better advertising results** than the LA Times!
I don't know why the "California Energy Commission" would make such a preposterous claim, unless they're not comparing the same size LCD and CRT, which would be ridiculous of course. I also don't know how the LA Times could be so ignorant as to not notice this obvious error, and how they could be so irresponsible as to report such obvious nonsense without doing any research or checking with other sources, or at least questioning or pointing out the (unfair) comparison of small CRTs to large LCDs.
Then wonder why the tax/power requirements isn't based on size/overall power consumption instead of just being arbitrarily assessed on LCDs in general. (Hint: it's another money grab, and what better way than to focus it on the better selling, higher-value product?)
* "popular" is defined as the percentage of my relatives that read it daily.
** "results" is defined as how many free gifts I get from advertisers.
*** Hey! Look at that! I'm full of shit but at least I cite my bullshit definitions, which is more than you can say for the LA Times and the California Energy Commission!
Why would that be, unless the mirrors are made of some radioactive material that somehow doesn't decay until the fish is dead? Since, of course, they are almost certainly not made of such a fanciful material, I can only assume that the researchers have not yet managed to get a mirror sample into a gas chromatographer / mass spectrometer yet. Which is a shame.
The calculations, which may be repeated by anyone who wishes to use the (mostly) publicly-available data, do indeed show that more than 75% of Obama's money came from people, corporations, and PACs donating more than $200. This apparently upsets you, but rather than question your own conflicting assumptions that make you feel good, you try to dispute the indisputable. Why?
Most importantly, let's not lose track of the fact that your reply: "That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200" was a pretty silly effort to claim that your alleged anecdotal acquaintance with "plenty" of people who you arbitrarily classify as "regular" somehow negates the irrefutable fact that "regular" (as in, typical, normal, or average) people most certainly do not donate more than $200 to any political candidate, much less to Obama. So despite your efforts to the contrary, your anecdote does not constitute even a datum, much less data, and the actual data show that your claim is flat-out wrong.
Moreover, your reply was in reply to someone who had a pretty strong link to refute the original thread poster's claim that "Yes, but most of Obama's money came from small donations from people like me ($50)." If you put the line at $50 instead of $200, it's excludes 99%+ of Obama donors. What makes you think you can bump that line by 400% (4x), then ignore even those well-publicized statistical results, then use some wholly unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim that you "know plenty of 'regular' people who donated more than $200" as argument to support your claim that the thread starter was wrong?
You can't, and you shouldn't try. The sooner you start getting acquainted with the fact that Obama isn't the messiah, that he was financed and elected by the corporate and rich-people interests, and that he said things during his campaign that he has no intention of following through on, the better off you'll be.
That's a pretty stupid way to define investment, since it means that there are no investments at all, anywhere, over the last few years. Seriously, you're suggesting that if I buy a stock it's only an investment if it doesn't lose value? That's dumb.
If you want to innovate... Move to a developing country. The United States is just a stagnant cesspool when it comes to science and technology these days.
It's a good thing you didn't try to substantiate that claim with any actual evidence or argument, otherwise I may have actually died laughing, rather than just coming close.
Even if you're including infants and children, which apparently you are in a totally ridiculous and unfair effort to be "right" in the face of being obviously wrong, the fact remains that 90% of Americans do not earn less than $80k, and you have utterly failed to substantiate that ridiculous assertion. And why would "the money required to support children" be in any way relevant if we're simply discussing the percentage of Americans making less than $80k/year?
Yeah, sorry, but your "clever" calculation does not support your assertion, which is no surprise because well, it's wrong.
Also, it is fortunate that your "17th" claim is, like your "90%" claim, is an exaggeration, because it would be sad to have 17 people in one thread as confused as you are.
While the PS2 has sold the most, it has also been out far longer. "Most sold" is not the same as "best selling" if you mean "best selling now" which is what that phrase usually means. In fact, Wii has outsold the PS2 since the Wii has been released, which means the PS2 has never been "best selling" compared to the Wii except before the Wii existed. Even the XBOX360 outsells the PS2.
Slashdot Mirror
How will I see that "most people blindly trust mainstream media" by watching a 24 hour news channel? Maybe you thought I was asking for source of your other claim? (I wasn't.)
[Citation needed]
It's not an assumption; I had them. They maxes out at 30Hz/eye. Maybe you got a better kind somehow? Mine were bundled with a Gefore 2. Yours?
We're talking about the much cheaper glasses that came with some ASUS Geforce cards. Those are 30Hz/eye max. I don't know about ELSA revelator.
Why don't you just post under your account?
While that monitor may do 120Hz, the glasses that came with GeForce 2 / ASUS hardware was 30Hz/eye max. Isn't that what we were talking about? I'm unfamiliar with older Crystal Eyes systems.
No, you did not get these in 2001. You got headache-inducing 30Hz/eye glasses. These are 60Hz/eye, which is why they require a 120Hz display.
As other have mentioned, games did not need to support the glasses -- they just worked, because the 3d data is in directX.
They didn't succeed because they gave people headaches due to the refresh rate being something like 30Hz for each eye. The new tech/glasses in this article are 60Hz/eye, which is why it requires special 120Hz displays (which is why these new ones probably won't succeed.)
It's probably a little late at that point, no? ("Pirated?" Do you mean "defrauded" or something like that?)
Define "regular." And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."
"Saving the Earth" is such a ridiculous, vain, asinine phrase. I truly hate anyone who utters it seriously.
Which is utter bullshit couched in a crappy, vague use of the word "average" as a weasel word to try to say, "Hey, these new LCDs sets use more power, so we need to tax and/or regulate them more!" instead of the more honest "people are buying bigger TVs because LCD tech makes that cost effective, but that is marginally increasing power consumption so we need to look at possible solutions."
Seriously, this nonsense is like saying "it costs more to keep a person alive these days so we all need to pitch in and pay new taxes to keep everyone alive or we'll have to start killing people!" instead of "hey, people are living longer thanks to medical advances, so we're going to have to start taxing/regulating healthcare to manage the issue."
This article is hurf-durf stupid.
No, they don't. You are completely incorrect. LCDs use marginally less than CRTs in standby mode (neither use any power when truly "off", as in "unplugged", of course) and even the CECs document shows that LCD and CRT (and Plasma and DLP) use the same power when in standby mode.
Nice try, care to give it another shot, but with facts, citations, or at least truth this time?
(The fact is, as I learned through contacting the CEC, is that they're not comparing the same size sets across technologies. They're comparing the "average LCD size" to the "average CRT size" which is something like comparing 30" LCD to 20" CRT, which is, of course, bullshit.
Close, but no. A same sized LCD will use far less (like 50% less) power than a CRT, and that's assuming old-school fluorescent backlights at 100%. LED backlight makes the difference even bigger. See the sources in my other post if you doubt it.
Also, comparing these technologies based on an "average" screen size that depends on the technology is bullshit. Compare size, or tax/set requirements based on power consumption, but the CEC's methods are ridiculous as is.
Right, except for the sales tax part. They'll buy it from an online vendor (who have the bes prices by far anyway) and pay no sales tax since the vendor will most likely be one with no brick & mortar presence in CA, and therefore need not charge sales tax.
Yay another example of raising taxes resulting in less revenue!
The article and in particular this "infographic" is completely wrong or at least misleading. LCD TVs do not consume more power than the same sized CRT as claimed. In fact, an LCD set will consume 50% or less power than a comparably-sized CRT. Of course, if you decide to base each type of set's power consumption on "average set size" without fucking bothering to define what that average is or even bothering to keep the same average for each type of TV (!), then you can pretty much "prove" anything you want, can't you?
Hell, my neighborhood newsletter is way more popular* and produces much better advertising results** than the LA Times!
I don't know why the "California Energy Commission" would make such a preposterous claim, unless they're not comparing the same size LCD and CRT, which would be ridiculous of course. I also don't know how the LA Times could be so ignorant as to not notice this obvious error, and how they could be so irresponsible as to report such obvious nonsense without doing any research or checking with other sources, or at least questioning or pointing out the (unfair) comparison of small CRTs to large LCDs.
Educate thyself and read any of the dozens of results that show LCDs use less power than CRTs.
Then wonder why the tax/power requirements isn't based on size/overall power consumption instead of just being arbitrarily assessed on LCDs in general. (Hint: it's another money grab, and what better way than to focus it on the better selling, higher-value product?)
* "popular" is defined as the percentage of my relatives that read it daily.
** "results" is defined as how many free gifts I get from advertisers.
*** Hey! Look at that! I'm full of shit but at least I cite my bullshit definitions, which is more than you can say for the LA Times and the California Energy Commission!
Why would that be, unless the mirrors are made of some radioactive material that somehow doesn't decay until the fish is dead? Since, of course, they are almost certainly not made of such a fanciful material, I can only assume that the researchers have not yet managed to get a mirror sample into a gas chromatographer / mass spectrometer yet. Which is a shame.
The calculations, which may be repeated by anyone who wishes to use the (mostly) publicly-available data, do indeed show that more than 75% of Obama's money came from people, corporations, and PACs donating more than $200. This apparently upsets you, but rather than question your own conflicting assumptions that make you feel good, you try to dispute the indisputable. Why?
Most importantly, let's not lose track of the fact that your reply: "That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200" was a pretty silly effort to claim that your alleged anecdotal acquaintance with "plenty" of people who you arbitrarily classify as "regular" somehow negates the irrefutable fact that "regular" (as in, typical, normal, or average) people most certainly do not donate more than $200 to any political candidate, much less to Obama. So despite your efforts to the contrary, your anecdote does not constitute even a datum, much less data, and the actual data show that your claim is flat-out wrong.
Moreover, your reply was in reply to someone who had a pretty strong link to refute the original thread poster's claim that "Yes, but most of Obama's money came from small donations from people like me ($50)." If you put the line at $50 instead of $200, it's excludes 99%+ of Obama donors. What makes you think you can bump that line by 400% (4x), then ignore even those well-publicized statistical results, then use some wholly unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim that you "know plenty of 'regular' people who donated more than $200" as argument to support your claim that the thread starter was wrong?
You can't, and you shouldn't try. The sooner you start getting acquainted with the fact that Obama isn't the messiah, that he was financed and elected by the corporate and rich-people interests, and that he said things during his campaign that he has no intention of following through on, the better off you'll be.
It's "inflammatory" because it shows you're wrong? And you're citing an unsourced comment on a blog as "evidence?" Oh boy.
It's chink in the armor not army. You know, like the Fox TV series.
That's a pretty stupid way to define investment, since it means that there are no investments at all, anywhere, over the last few years. Seriously, you're suggesting that if I buy a stock it's only an investment if it doesn't lose value? That's dumb.
It's a good thing you didn't try to substantiate that claim with any actual evidence or argument, otherwise I may have actually died laughing, rather than just coming close.
Even if you're including infants and children, which apparently you are in a totally ridiculous and unfair effort to be "right" in the face of being obviously wrong, the fact remains that 90% of Americans do not earn less than $80k, and you have utterly failed to substantiate that ridiculous assertion. And why would "the money required to support children" be in any way relevant if we're simply discussing the percentage of Americans making less than $80k/year?
Yeah, sorry, but your "clever" calculation does not support your assertion, which is no surprise because well, it's wrong.
Also, it is fortunate that your "17th" claim is, like your "90%" claim, is an exaggeration, because it would be sad to have 17 people in one thread as confused as you are.
While the PS2 has sold the most, it has also been out far longer. "Most sold" is not the same as "best selling" if you mean "best selling now" which is what that phrase usually means. In fact, Wii has outsold the PS2 since the Wii has been released, which means the PS2 has never been "best selling" compared to the Wii except before the Wii existed. Even the XBOX360 outsells the PS2.
90% of Americans do not make less than $80k/year. Get a clue.
One less than you.